 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Arvis Harper Bail Bonds, Inc. v. State, No. CA 04-755,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 18, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the bondsman did not file a motion to set aside a bond-forfeiture order until over 98 days after the forfeiture, the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the subsequent hearing to act on the motion to set aside the judgment because the 90-day period provided for under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a) had elapsed.
|
|||||
| Biggers v. State, CACR04-399,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug possession convictions and the denial of his motion to suppress were both proper where, once the trooper smelled the marijuana when defendant entered the patrol unit, the search of the vehicle was supported by probable cause.
|
|||||
| Bushue v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA 04-1078,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Father failed to preserve the issue of clear and convincing evidence to sustain the termination of his parental rights where the State moved to incorporate all previous testimony and exhibits, the court asked if anyone disagreed, and no objection was made.
|
|||||
| Cearlock v. Mendard, CA04-680,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION TWO, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The circuit court erred by granting summary judgment and enforcing a restrictive covenant on the landowners' property. There were three owners of lots within the declaration who did not sign the covenant as required by Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 18-12-103 (Repl. 2003).
|
|||||
| Goffin v. State, CACR04-1158,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION FOUR, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant admitted that he was the owner of the club in which police saw several men standing around a pool table with dice, a dice cup, and piles of money, there was substantial evidence to support his conviction for operating a gambling house in violation of Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 5-66-103(a) (Repl. 1997).
|
|||||
| LeFever v. State, CA CR 04-1028,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, May 18, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for raping his 13-year-old sister-in-law where the victim was born in 1985 and testified that she first had sex with defendant in 1998 when she began babysitting for her sister and where defendant's videotaped statement to police, which was deemed voluntary, corroborated the victim's testimony.
|
|||||
| Moore Inv. Co. v. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, CA 04-54,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 18, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a legal malpractice case arisng from an acquisition agreement, the trial court properly granted summary judgment under Ark. R. Civ. P. 56 for the law firm. No material issue of fact existed, and the three-year statute of limitations set forth in Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 16-56-105 (Repl. 1996) barred the claims made by the client.
|
|||||
| Norton v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., CA04-733,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The termination of the mother's parental rights was proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. ¿ 9-27-341 (Supp. 2003) because, although the mother had made "some progress" at times, she was unable to consistently maintain a suitable environment for her children.
|
|||||
| Posey v. State, CACR04-610,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION THREE, May 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not preserve his arguments that the trial court erred in revoking his probation and by admitting identification testimony because he failed to object in the trial court on either basis asserted on appeal, and his hearsay argument did not contain convincing argument or citation to authority to be considered on appeal.
|
|||||
| Renfro v. Air Flo Co., No. CA 04-1217,
COURT OF APPEALS OF ARKANSAS, DIVISION ONE, May 18, 2005, Opinion delivered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a process server testified that he served appellant with the original complaint to collect on a debt, the lack of an affidavit under Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(g) providing proof of service did not affect the validity of service. The defect in the proof of service was cured by the process server's testimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
